JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[MastanKhan]

Ah right but they do work , just not as effective as twelve runway shredders on six heavy fighters

Hi,

I agree to what you are saying---but I am also looking at it this way---3 major strikes by the U S---in sudan---in afghanistan---in syria---the results are not that exciting---now remember---those countries did not have any counter---.

The one that you want to use against has---counter measures in place---plus it has retaliation capability as well.

You have to work on the vulnerability of the enemy---the enemy's current vulnerability is its air force---. It is looking at a two dimensional threat across from two different borders---.

For it---it would be a welcome relief if pak military sticks with missile strikes---they will pull their tier 1 aircraft back and let pak military launch its missiles ---.

Once pak military is done with its missiles---the enemy aircraft can come back into the arena and smash pak military into kingdom come---.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hi,

I agree to what you are saying---but I am also looking at it this way---3 major strikes by the U S---in sudan---in afghanistan---in syria---the results are not that exciting---now remember---those countries did not have any counter---.

The one that you want to use against has---counter measures in place---plus it has retaliation capability as well.

You have to work on the vulnerability of the enemy---the enemy's current vulnerability is its air force---. It is looking at a two dimensional threat across from two different borders---.

For it---it would be a welcome relief if pak military sticks with missile strikes---they will pull their tier 1 aircraft back and let pak military launch its missiles ---.

Once pak military is done with its missiles---the enemy aircraft can come back into the arena and smash pak military into kingdom come---.

For everyone else who looks at this thread - present or future - the above is completely incorrect. Let's assume Pakistan has heavy strike fighters. What will they do against Indian radars? A dive bombing run? The only way to take out modern radars is:

1. Saturation attack using stand off weapons like ARM etc.
2. Subterfuge.
3. Cyber warfare.

Heavy strike fighters do nothing against radar installations. The above post just shows the complete lack of understanding of the author about any type of warfare.

 

[khanasifm]

For everyone else who looks at this thread - present or future - the above is completely incorrect. Let's assume Pakistan has heavy strike fighters. What will they do against Indian radars? A dive bombing run? The only way to take out modern radars is:

1. Saturation attack using stand off weapons like ARM etc.
2. Subterfuge.
3. Cyber warfare.

Heavy strike fighters do nothing against radar installations. The above post just shows the complete lack of understanding of the author about any type of warfare.

Just share with everyone and you are veteran of which air campaign ? Bakkah valley, desert shield/storm, Serbia ...



v/r

 

[CriticalThought]

Just share with everyone and you are veteran of which air campaign ? Bakkah valley, desert shield/storm, Serbia ...



v/r

Do I need to be?

 

[Ultima Thule]

Hi,

They don't work---.

Hi,

They don't work---.

Why please explain

 

[The Accountant]

For everyone else who looks at this thread - present or future - the above is completely incorrect. Let's assume Pakistan has heavy strike fighters. What will they do against Indian radars? A dive bombing run? The only way to take out modern radars is:

1. Saturation attack using stand off weapons like ARM etc.
2. Subterfuge.
3. Cyber warfare.

Heavy strike fighters do nothing against radar installations. The above post just shows the complete lack of understanding of the author about any type of warfare.

Bro, is the radar only threat ? Common man there are lot of other use of aircrafts .. You need to provide air cover to the troops on ground ... You need to have a dog fight ... You need to attack enemy's armed formation ... you have to attack enemy's bases and formations ...

First of all thunder and viper are an excellent fighter but here are the issues :

1. Numbers are already low in comparison to adversary 4th generation .
2. The moment war starts f16 supply line will be blocked hence your front line fighter hava big limitations ...
3. Thunder is short legged to go into enemy territory, strike and come back ... as to attack it has 4 hard points only ,,, three will be used for fuel tank even if it gets mid air refueling ...

In short we need atleast one medium weight to heavy weight fighter (f16 supply chain is not reliable as India and US are almost ally now) ...

If we can't see writing on the wall then we are dumb ...

 

[CriticalThought]

Bro, is the radar only threat ? Common man there are lot of other use of aircrafts .. You need to provide air cover to the troops on ground ... You need to have a dog fight ... You need to attack enemy's armed formation ... you have to attack enemy's bases and formations ...

First of all thunder and viper are an excellent fighter but here are the issues :

1. Numbers are already low in comparison to adversary 4th generation .
2. The moment war starts f16 supply line will be blocked hence your front line fighter hava big limitations ...
3. Thunder is short legged to go into enemy territory, strike and come back ... as to attack it has 4 hard points only ,,, three will be used for fuel tank even if it gets mid air refueling ...

In short we need atleast one medium weight to heavy weight fighter (f16 supply chain is not reliable as India and US are almost ally now) ...

If we can't see writing on the wall then we are dumb ...

I was specifically replying to his post about how, specifically, a heavy weight strike fighter is needed against radars.

This is Pakistani doctrine today: use missiles from air/ground/sea/submarine for deep strikes. This is what it is. And remember, it is a doctrine. Its not set by PAF. The tri-services formulate the doctrine in consort with each other. And hence, the joint staffs committee should be answerable for this state of affairs.

Now, regarding the problems you have outlined above. If numbers are low, then we should ramp up production. Secondly, with aerial refuelling, the Thunder can actually penetrate deep into Indian territory. From @Naif al Hilali the ferry range of Thunder is 1,880 nautical miles.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17s-ferry-and-combat-ranges.462726/

Half of that is 940 nautical miles. Let's be even more pessimistic and bring it down to 800 nautical miles. That's approx. 1500 km. This is a very respectable distance.

It is a lack of strategic thinking when people mindlessly harp on about 'deep strikes'. You perform 'deep strikes' in enemy territory when you have air superiority, or you have a stealth fighter against a technologically inferior enemy. If war starts today, you will have problems penetrating 100 kms into Indian airspace, forget thousands of km deep.

For truly devastating strikes, what you actually need is long range stealth bombers. Now that would be a game changer that will send jitters throughout Indian military planners. If we have the wherewithal to acquire and maintain them, let's go for it!

 

[The Accountant]

I was specifically replying to his post about how, specifically, a heavy weight strike fighter is needed against radars.

This is Pakistani doctrine today: use missiles from air/ground/sea/submarine for deep strikes. This is what it is. And remember, it is a doctrine. Its not set by PAF. The tri-services formulate the doctrine in consort with each other. And hence, the joint staffs committee should be answerable for this state of affairs.

Now, regarding the problems you have outlined above. If numbers are low, then we should ramp up production. Secondly, with aerial refuelling, the Thunder can actually penetrate deep into Indian territory. From @Naif al Hilali the ferry range of Thunder is 1,880 nautical miles.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17s-ferry-and-combat-ranges.462726/

Half of that is 940 nautical miles. Let's be even more pessimistic and bring it down to 800 nautical miles. That's approx. 1500 km. This is a very respectable distance.

It is a lack of strategic thinking when people mindlessly harp on about 'deep strikes'. You perform 'deep strikes' in enemy territory when you have air superiority, or you have a stealth fighter against a technologically inferior enemy. If war starts today, you will have problems penetrating 100 kms into Indian airspace, forget thousands of km deep.

For truly devastating strikes, what you actually need is long range stealth bombers. Now that would be a game changer that will send jitters throughout Indian military planners. If we have the wherewithal to acquire and maintain them, let's go for it!

I agree that in a war going even 100 to 200 Km will be like putting on risk but you do take that risk and greater the range of the aircraft greater the opportunity they will have .. Just take an account of arab Israel war ... Most of the times Arab were destoryed due to fuel shortage ,,, whenever Arab's fighters go down on fuel at the same moment Israeli's attacked. Even at the time of engagement when you are using full after burn you consume your fuel in minutes so if you are fight is not decided in few minutes then you are at complete disadvantage v/s a fighter aircraft which has greater fuel due to this reason you do not send short legged aircraft in enemy's territory as they cannot stay long in a fight ...

The ferry range is based on subsonic speed, ideal altitude without any after burner and no load ... In an engagement it will not be

 

[CriticalThought]

I agree that in a war going even 100 to 200 Km will be like putting on risk but you do take that risk and greater the range of the aircraft greater the opportunity they will have .. Just take an account of arab Israel war ... Most of the times Arab were destoryed due to fuel shortage ,,, whenever Arab's fighters go down on fuel at the same moment Israeli's attacked. Even at the time of engagement when you are using full after burn you consume your fuel in minutes so if you are fight is not decided in few minutes then you are at complete disadvantage v/s a fighter aircraft which has greater fuel due to this reason you do not send short legged aircraft in enemy's territory as they cannot stay long in a fight ...

The ferry range is based on subsonic speed, ideal altitude without any after burner and no load ... In an engagement it will not be

The MIG-21 had a range of approx. 1500 km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21 less than half that of Thunder. In a sub-continental war, if the Thunder is used in its proper role, it shall excel Insha Allah. Don't worry about it.

In the presence of air defence, even the Americans don't take risks. The Iraqi air campaign started only after all radar installations had been taken out. To get a flavor of a modern air battle against effective SAM coverage, read this:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APJ-Lambeth-Mirror.html

Read this fully and carefully. This will give you a flavor of an India/Pakistan conflict. It will be brutal and it will be protracted. Forget about 'taking risks' etc. SEAD/DEAD will be on the forefront of any pilots going into India. The question of going thousands of km deep would be ridiculous. If you have gone 400 km into Indian territory and your RWRs have not signaled at all, guess what? The Indians have masterfully baited you into a deadly trap. You should be saying your prayers now. It will take a lot of time, and many aircraft lost, to eliminate Indian air defences. The war might be over by then. The opportunity to go thousands of km into Indian territory will not even arise.

 

[AFlover]

The MIG-21 had a range of approx. 1500 km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21 less than half that of Thunder. In a sub-continental war, if the Thunder is used in its proper role, it shall excel Insha Allah. Don't worry about it.

In the presence of air defence, even the Americans don't take risks. The Iraqi air campaign started only after all radar installations had been taken out. To get a flavor of a modern air battle against effective SAM coverage, read this:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APJ-Lambeth-Mirror.html

Read this fully and carefully. This will give you a flavor of an India/Pakistan conflict. It will be brutal and it will be protracted. Forget about 'taking risks' etc. SEAD/DEAD will be on the forefront of any pilots going into India. The question of going thousands of km deep would be ridiculous. If you have gone 400 km into Indian territory and your RWRs have not signaled at all, guess what? The Indians have masterfully baited you into a deadly trap. You should be saying your prayers now. It will take a lot of time, and many aircraft lost, to eliminate Indian air defences. The war might be over by then. The opportunity to go thousands of km into Indian territory will not even arise.

A very useful analysis but as we r solely relying on SAM without any larger fighter as u mentioned the war theatre and the tactics has been changed over the period of time due to new developments in technology so it is changed in their(enemy) planning as well. If as we read Afghanistan is being an indian base day by day and India succeeded in securing an airbase there in future,will it not be nearly impossible for us to tackle it from both ends.
A normal understanding for a common man like me can be in such a situation wen enemy knows that we r heavily dependent on SAM what if they neutralise our installations with their missiles leaving no or nearly zero SAMor AD with us how shall we defend our bases from IAF unless we reach to a neuclear option?
I mean if not parity in numbers at least we should decrease the qualitative disparity with IAF be it getting more 16s or J10s or our own block 3 ?

 

[CriticalThought]

A very useful analysis but as we r solely relying on SAM without any larger fighter as u mentioned the war theatre and the tactics has been changed over the period of time due to new developments in technology so it is changed in their(enemy) planning as well. If as we read Afghanistan is being an indian base day by day and India succeeded in securing an airbase there in future,will it not be nearly impossible for us to tackle it from both ends.
A normal understanding for a common man like me can be in such a situation wen enemy knows that we r heavily dependent on SAM what if they neutralise our installations with their missiles leaving no or nearly zero SAMor AD with us how shall we defend our bases from IAF unless we reach to a neuclear option?

As things stand today, there is a very valid and credible threat by American jets sitting in Afghanistan. Recently, there has been news about the Americans helping Afghans in creating a credible airforce. At that point we would be in a real pickle. There are many ways out of that. One way is outright subversion and subterfuge. ISI should make sure that any Afghan airforce never takes off the ground - literally. Kill their trainees, destroy the aircraft on the ground. And I am not joking about this. In addition, ensure there are Taliban moles in the upcoming airforce. This development can be a two edged sword for America. If there is one thing that Taliban have longed for, eyes of have nots mournfully looking at the haves, it is air power. They have systematically infiltrated the army. It stands to logic and reason they will do their very best to infiltrate the airforce as well. It takes just one turncoat pilot to fly a jet into American embassy or bomb it. I tell you, this will be *HUGE*. I mean, it will be monumental. America will lose credibility throughout the world. These idiots don't realize what kind of Fiendfyre they are playing with. And I do hope they learn a very, very, very harsh lesson from their folly.

If the above is not successful for us, I am pretty sure the Americans will be arming the Afghans with latest F-16s, just out of spite, and to rub salt into our wounds. At that point, yes, I agree, we will be in a big mess. Also, I have said this earlier, I would not be surprised at all if the Tejas finds its way into Afghanistan. One tiny silverlining for us is that Russia has supported us against American aggression. In the aftermath of Salala, Russians openly encouraged to bring the matter into the Security Council where they would support us. It is entirely possible that the Russians and Chinese will prop us up in case we are surrounded on two sides. Other than that, the state of the economy is such that I simply don't see HOW the PAF can acquire and then maintain expensive fighter jets. You think this encirclement is dire? People somehow completely forget the naval theater. A country like us ordering 8 submarines in one go, while at the same time upgrading 3 existing ones - do you realize what a huge investment this is? And just its magnitude should show you how important this is. If you think we can be squeezed via air power from two sized, well, the word to describe what would happen from sea is 'crushed'. The Indian naval advantage is extreme. Given all these priorities, it is simply unlikely we will have funds for PAF.

In this scenario, our failure is to let Indian economy shine. If you recall, the battle of Badr started because Muslims tried to attack an economic caravan, based on intelligence that funds generated from it will be used in preparation for war. Pre-emptively striking economic interests of a malicious, mischievious enemy is taught by our religion. Letting Indian economy take off in complete peace and tranquility is treason by our rulers and a failure of our intelligence.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I do not know whether to laugh or cry after reading 'analysis' over here.

We do not have the economy to support an aggressive airforce equipped with heavy fighters in even moderate numbers. If we opt for such foolishness, we would be walking into a trap.

Learn from the Chinese. They have stood up to provocations but avoided escalation. We could do the same, & grow stronger all the while.

 

[AFlover]

As things stand today, there is a very valid and credible threat by American jets sitting in Afghanistan. Recently, there has been news about the Americans helping Afghans in creating a credible airforce. At that point we would be in a real pickle. There are many ways out of that. One way is outright subversion and subterfuge. ISI should make sure that any Afghan airforce never takes off the ground - literally. Kill their trainees, destroy the aircraft on the ground. And I am not joking about this. In addition, ensure there are Taliban moles in the upcoming airforce. This development can be a two edged sword for America. If there is one thing that Taliban have longed for, eyes of have nots mournfully looking at the haves, it is air power. They have systematically infiltrated the army. It stands to logic and reason they will do their very best to infiltrate the airforce as well. It takes just one turncoat pilot to fly a jet into American embassy or bomb it. I tell you, this will be *HUGE*. I mean, it will be monumental. America will lose credibility throughout the world. These idiots don't realize what kind of Fiendfyre they are playing with. And I do hope they learn a very, very, very harsh lesson from their folly.

If the above is not successful for us, I am pretty sure the Americans will be arming the Afghans with latest F-16s, just out of spite, and to rub salt into our wounds. At that point, yes, I agree, we will be in a big mess. Also, I have said this earlier, I would not be surprised at all if the Tejas finds its way into Afghanistan. One tiny silverlining for us is that Russia has supported us against American aggression. In the aftermath of Salala, Russians openly encouraged to bring the matter into the Security Council where they would support us. It is entirely possible that the Russians and Chinese will prop us up in case we are surrounded on two sides. Other than that, the state of the economy is such that I simply don't see HOW the PAF can acquire and then maintain expensive fighter jets. You think this encirclement is dire? People somehow completely forget the naval theater. A country like us ordering 8 submarines in one go, while at the same time upgrading 3 existing ones - do you realize what a huge investment this is? And just its magnitude should show you how important this is. If you think we can be squeezed via air power from two sized, well, the word to describe what would happen from sea is 'crushed'. The Indian naval advantage is extreme. Given all these priorities, it is simply unlikely we will have funds for PAF.

In this scenario, our failure is to let Indian economy shine. If you recall, the battle of Badr started because Muslims tried to attack an economic caravan, based on intelligence that funds generated from it will be used in preparation for war. Pre-emptively striking economic interests of a malicious, mischievious enemy is taught by our religion. Letting Indian economy take off in complete peace and tranquility is treason by our rulers and a failure of our intelligence.

I agreed on many things but literally dangerous to rely on some,if they r part of the strategy especially where AFG is involved.
And it's also dangerous to believe that up to what extent foreign power we can rely on if such a time comes.
One thing for sure we need urgently to establish peace in Pakistan, generate additional energy sources to bring back economy and business.
Play the same game with the enemy whatever she is playing with us
Currently he made us engaged with internal threat.
But for airforce we really need to generate/allocate more funds
Yes u r right we did right things for naval acquisition.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Afghanistan will not be involved in any air-war. They can not yet fly armed helicopters and propeller planes properly. It is foolish to bring in Afghanistan when it does not matter in the least. What does this have anything to do with JF-17. Stop derailing the thread with BS rants.


@AFlover declare your flags!

 

[SQ8]

TOPIC IS JF-17

Stick to it!!!